>It's not like I've read 40 scientific papers
And that led you to think metabolites can be produced outside of the human body, Englesh lawage litrature majour hedonist freak.
The guy that's struggling to pronounce benzoylecgonine (ben-zoy-lego-knee), cocaethylene (literally pronounced as it's written) and norcocaine (not nora-cocaine, Nicholas Ralph) is now an expert in biochemistry because he read 40 papers. You do you DarkBalldo8888.
Heavens forbid if your daughter tested positive for cocaethylene, for fuck's sake.
There was a lot of discussion in the dedicated thread to guessing what specific metabolites were tested.
If they only found norcocaine or cocaethylene and not the normally tested-for metabolites this sounds like it could actually be correct.
Cocaine itself is one of the metabolites that is looked for, but there are others, like benzoylecgonine, which is also abundant in hair follicles.
The amount and ratio of these two indicates active cocaine use, if they did not detect any benzoylecgonine, they know that the kid did not touch coke, and it was just in the sample, if they found it in a good ratio, they know it was actual use.
Nick, despite doing so much research and reading 40 papers, can't pronounce any of the substances, but it appears he's saying his daughter tested POSITIVE for benzoylecgonine and NEGATIVE for cocaethylene and norcocaine, and that Rekieta claims that benzoylecgonine is the metabolite which is "actually is created outside of human bodies."
From what I understand, this claim by Rekieta does not have an actual scientific basis, and benzoylecgonine is in fact the primary metabolite which is tested for in drug tests, but I am not a subject matter expert.
I have no clue where he came up with this, but a guess for what happened is that Rekieta looked at his own personal hair test which tested positive for all three and concluded the test which only tested positive for one was faulty.
So he just adds up both numbers...? It still can't be that high.
Is this retard seriously citing those self-report studies again, where the accuracy is defined by it's adherence to correctly self-reporting, and surprise, most people who claim they didn't do cocaine (but did) were tested positive? Is he retarded?
Even if he did have come up with a number that made sense, the rate of a false negative is irrelevant conditional on a positive test, and from what I remember looking up a couple months ago, even in the self-report studies the tests have much higher specificity than sensitivity, the paper I read had over 90% specificity
Nick really ought to have figured that out with his "40 fucking scientific papers" read.
Let's be honest, the county is probably used to crackheads spending 20 minutes on Google and coming up with garbled pseudoscientific nonsense.
Check out the top Google search suggestion.
